The Art of Learning Photography

I have read two books that I have found very interesting, in terms of Art and Photography, (There are probably thousands more ) Michael Freeman has written two, called The photographers Mind and The photographers Eye, publisher; Ilex (ISBN by PM ) worth a look, even if it's to disagree. He at least backs up his ideas, with examples. Anyone else with thoughtful prose to look at?
 
There's a lot of talk about how creative means 'breaking the rules' , but while i'd certainly agree that theres no need to be bound slavishly by the 'rule of thirds' and such ( I go with the adage that rules are for the guidance of wise men but the blind obedience of fools) when we look at some of the 'great' creative works a lot of them do follow at least some of the rules of composition.

For example .. take HCBs famous staircase shot http://shsphotography.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/henri-cartier-bresson_bicycle-stair2.jpg yes he's captured the definitive moment , and no it doesn't matter that the cyclist isn't sharp (indeed the blur makes the shot) but all the key elements of that shot are roughly on thirds , plus the stairs provide a strong leading line through the elements.

So in my opinion at least, no we shouldn't be so bound by 'the rules' that they stifle our creativity, but equally we shouldn't disregard them totally without thought as they often make the difference between a meh snapshot and an image that captures the viewer. A messy poorly composed B&W shot isn't automatically art , and no amount of chin stroking and explanation will make it so if it doesn't have something that captures the eye and draws the viewer in.

IMO an Art photo is like telling a joke, in that if you have to explain it for people to "get it" then it was poor in the first place
 
I started to go to college for photography because I wanted to "learn" the art side of things. As an engineer, I can understand technical concepts and apply them. I know what to do in-camera to create certain effects. I get the relationship between ISO, aperture & shutter speed. I know basic rules of photography, and I know that they can be ignored at times!

What I'm not good at (and have never been!) is art. And college never taught me that. What it did teach me was that looking at other photographers can, and has, improved my photography. Research, research, research.... I think that if I spend enough time looking at photographers I enjoy, then maybe some of it will rub off. Taking Street Photography as an example... It's my opinion that most of the street work I've seen on Flickr is rubbish. Just random photos of people on the street (often on their mobile phones). Take a look at Bruce Gilden, Bruce Davidson or Martin Parr to see what I mean. Then disagree if you want to!! :)

Art is subjective by its very nature and the non-art aspects of a photograph are often discussed, because they are less subjective. If a photo is "too dark", then it's easy to explain to the photographer how they need to widen aperture, increase shutter or increase ISO (as well as the effects of those actions) to get a brighter picture. However if the photographer wanted a dark under-exposed image for artistic reasons, the whole discussion becomes moot. That's one reason I don't crit any more unless someone is clearly new to the game.

As always, IDKAABIKWIL (I don't know about art, but I know what I like) so your mileage may vary! I'm still very much learning to "play without the music in front of me" (I like that analogy).

Interesting discussion!

Ian.
 
Tech stuff can obviously be taught, it's universal - but art is personal, so can't be taught, only encouraged.
 
Special effects can be fun but are not in themselves 'art'. Art is hard to define, which can cause problems in discussing it. Art has an enigmatic inner strength, an experimental certainty, and a test of its integrity and worth is to see how it resonates (communicates). Aestheticism isn't gut feeling.
 
Last edited:
These are some great points!

Pete - I totally agree with you. Rules are there for a reason, the reason being that in 90%+ of cases, it works. I am trying to work on the thirds rule in my own work. The question I ask myself is "If it is not going to be a thirds type of shot, what is the reason?" Then I can better assess whether I think it works or not. Generally I agree with you. Things like leading lines and thirds all come from an era way before photography and hold good to this day. The only thing I am not sure about is that being creative means breaking these rules. Occasionally yes, generally no.

Ian, also some great points. I think many many people approach photography because of a tech or analytical background, it seems to help with the initial 'logical' learning, but you are totally correct when it comes to art. I too have a naturally logical brain and its the art side that I have to 'unleash' and set free. It is this part that I really enjoy and constantly find I am learning on. I also totally agree with your street shooting summary. I have never done this kind of work because, like you, I find that most (nearly all?) street stuff leaves me emotionless and cold. People see an old person and think that must make a great street shot. Make them old and homeless and they are in 7th heaven. I simply don't get it. I do see that the old great of street, I include McCullin in this having recently seen his book, have something appealing going on and all of them manage to invoke emotion. The vast majority of it tho is simply as you say. Random shots of random people doing nothing but going about their business. Nothing to grab me emotionally.

Special effects Rog, communication is key. I do find myself using some type of 'special effect' in most of my recent work. For example, on nearly all my personal work currently I find myself adding grain. Not a lot but just a small, almost imperceptible amount. Why? Not sure I know but a small amount just seems to add a bit of 'texture' and depth to an image. I am not worried about being retro, I just want to move it away from 'perfect exposure' I guess. In fact, I am even struggling to say why so it must be a sub conscious thing.

Great posts....
 
Great atmosphere, but not art. I am very creative but technicaly useless so,

I struggle to use a piece of technology to paint or record what I see.
I cannot create anything with this kit, it simply records what is in front of it and how I have aimed it at the subject.Obviously I can twiddle knobs and settings but that often takes longer to fine tune than the moment lasts.
I am far from expert but I would advise anyone wanting to develop their artistic side to shoot on auto with an open mind on the subject matter.

Sometimes I think we miss great opportunities whilst looking in the opposite direction for something specific.

I have often thought that we end up where we are, because we avoided where we were going.:thinking:

A lot of so called art, is just a happy accident with great BS and prattle about why it was done on purpose;)
 
I agree that rules are there for guidance only, but you have to understand them before you can break them. Not always the rule of thirds, but I'm struggling to think of one piece of art ( not just photography) that is commonly thought of as great that doesn't follow some form of compositional rule.
 
Haha, I admire your dismissive attitude to others' art Steve!

Interesting views, I guess there is something to be said for just concentrating on the shot itself but I have to disagree with just shooting on auto. If the depth of field and shutter etc comes easily then why would you do that.

Some art is BS I agree but true artists manage to get lucky VERY often. Surely there is a reason?

Something that has just occurred to me is that there is a lot of Art in processing the image once it is captured. I wonder how many people perfect the taking but not the processing side?
 
Hugh, really? I can think of loads!!! Google 'classic paintings' and many are central, no lead in, etc etc.

Agree they have to be understood before broken, as I said earlier, you need to have a 'reason' you are breaking them. Then it can work. Of course, every picture follows one rule or another but def not always the 'classic' ones.
 
boyfalldown said:
I agree that rules are there for guidance only, but you have to understand them before you can break them. Not always the rule of thirds, but I'm struggling to think of one piece of art ( not just photography) that is commonly thought of as great that doesn't follow some form of compositional rule.
Click to expand...

this

too often the " I don't follow rules because i'm like artisic an that innit" roughly translates as "my photography is crap but i think if I put it in B&w and make some pseudo intellectual remarks everyone will give me props anyway"

anyone can describe anything as art , but wheher it stands the test of time really revolves arround whether anyone else feels the same.

The thing is that many great photographers did decent composition instinctively, even in reportage - if you look at the images for Larry Burrows' "one ride with yankee papa 13" most of them are clearly on established compositional rules - now he clearly didnt stand there with a grid stroking his chin, but he made shots that were aesthetically pleasing to the eye without having to conciously think about bit also enabling him to capture the moment

Even with Nick Ut's famous napalm girl image , if you look at it carefully its divided into three horizontal zones and the girl is bang on the vertical third as well. Obviously it wasnt R3 which made it shocking as its impact was down to the content - but had it been poorly composed/exposed/focussed it might well have got less use

again he clearly didnt stand their pondering compositional rules - but then as a skilled photographer he didnt have to because it came naturally to him
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Hugh, really? I can think of loads!!! Google 'classic paintings' and many are central, no lead in, etc etc.

Agree they have to be understood before broken, as I said earlier, you need to have a 'reason' you are breaking them. Then it can work. Of course, every picture follows one rule or another but def not always the 'classic' ones.
Click to expand...

Really. Without meaning in anyway too do anything other then contribute to the discussion, for two examples look at De Vinci's last supper or Michelango's Creation of Adam - neither follow the classic rule of third, but both follow compositional 'rules'
 
Last edited:
@ Rich
Re post processing - it depends on the nature of the image.
For a lot of my own photographs of mostly found pictures it can be very minimal with nothing much more than a crop. However some may regard them as "just" record shots.
I would put the "moments" and the few emotional photographs in this category.
For others where I may want to be a little bit more "creative" it will be a bit more time on it but not a lot.
For very few images it will be a lot of time put into the total image building (and not just processing). However it may not still be considered "art".

@ Steve.
If you master your technique you do not need, or even want to, to shoot in "auto" if you have a camera that allows other methods of control.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Really. Without meaning in anyway too do anything other then contribute to the discussion, for two examples look at De Vinci's last supper or Michelango's Creation of Adam - neither follow the classic rule of third, but both follow compositional 'rules'
Click to expand...

De Vinci's stuff is well worth a look at as a mathematician/engineer who also did art. Or is it the other way around??

I did a whole college side project on the Golden Ratio which (in my mind) is where that "rule of thirds" came from.

Ian.
 
Harlequin565 said:
De Vinci's stuff is well worth a look at as a mathematician/engineer who also did art. Or is it the other way around??

I did a whole college side project on the Golden Ratio which (in my mind) is where that "rule of thirds" came from.

Ian.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I'd actually edited my post (I guess while you were typing to mention De Vinci :)
 
@both Richards, what I meant was, completely forgeting about settings and useing all your concentration on simply catching a moment, a look or whatever and see what happens. Take a walk and instead of thinking, "I think that shot will look nice, now what settings will the shot need" forget all that and just shoot it in auto, how you want see it, fast as you like without overthinking the shot.
The desired result being that you will quickly see exactly where your eye for a shot is lacking for the least amount of faff.

I think that PP is turd polishing to an extent and has b****r all to do with art.

Art is I think, in the eye of the beholder and rarely accomplishes universal accolade and if you are creating it personally, do it for yourself and if others like it great, if not, so what!:)
 
boyfalldown said:
Really. Without meaning in anyway too do anything other then contribute to the discussion, name one
Click to expand...

OK - and here goes!

The Mona Lisa.

And this is where it will get subjective.

Her face isnt central nor on a third, the eyes are not on a third, the background finishes higher than the third, arguably no lead in lines, hands not central or on a third. There is evidence that the composition works because it uses the "Golden Number" or "Golden Ratio" but that isn't well known as a compositional tool.

Never liked it myself but considered one of the best...

(Got called away and distracted and others have also mentioned Da Vinci but....this is what i typed in advance of the other comments!)
 
Steve T said:
@both Richards, what I meant was, completely forgeting about settings and useing all your concentration on simply catching a moment, a look or whatever and see what happens. Take a walk and instead of thinking, "I think that shot will look nice, now what settings will the shot need" forget all that and just shoot it in auto, how you want see it, fast as you like without overthinking the shot.
The desired result being that you will quickly see exactly where your eye for a shot is lacking for the least amount of faff.

I think that PP is turd polishing to an extent and has b****r all to do with art.

Art is I think, in the eye of the beholder and rarely accomplishes universal accolade and if you are creating it personally, do it for yourself and if others like it great, if not, so what!:)
Click to expand...

Haha again! Love the comments but fundamentally totally disagree...and there I guess is the wonder and brilliance of art!
 
Steve I don't think that PP (darkroom, lightroom ...) need be 'turd polishing' - although it can be! Processing can be a valid part of the making of a message.

I think that it's possible to have an image though that's essentially devoid of message - is mere artifice or pretence. There is style, and there is true art.

There will always be a range - there is light music, and deep music, and it's not totally subjective - a measure of consensus can often be found that validates the reading.
 
Rich_Ellis said:
OK - and here goes!

The Mona Lisa.

And this is where it will get subjective.

Her face isnt central nor on a third, the eyes are not on a third, the background finishes higher than the third, arguably no lead in lines, hands not central or on a third. There is evidence that the composition works because it uses the "Golden Number" or "Golden Ratio" but that isn't well known as a compositional tool.

Never liked it myself but considered one of the best...

(Got called away and distracted and others have also mentioned Da Vinci but....this is what i typed in advance of the other comments!)
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree how well known it is as a compositional tool. De Vinci certainly knew and used it including on the Mona Lisa. See it did follow rules. The use of golden ratios in that painting is very strong although painters of that era probably knew it as the divine proportion.

You really don't rate it? Look at a beautiful face - bet its in the golden ratio
 
Last edited:
feek said:
I have read two books that I have found very interesting, in terms of Art and Photography, (There are probably thousands more ) Michael Freeman has written two, called The photographers Mind and The photographers Eye, publisher; Ilex (ISBN by PM ) worth a look, even if it's to disagree. He at least backs up his ideas, with examples. Anyone else with thoughtful prose to look at?
Click to expand...

Some of the Craft and Vision stuff is good - eg: Beyond Thirds is brief but worth a read and it's only around £3 (PDF)
http://www.andrewsgibson.com/blog/2...raphers-introduction-to-creative-composition/
http://craftandvision.com/books/beyond-thirds/

Plus these two which are free:
http://craftandvision.com/books/craft-and-vision/
http://craftandvision.com/books/craft-vision-2/
 
Last edited:
Photography and its uses are defined for function, as clearly as that for a pencil.
Photography is a tool in the same way that a pencil is.
And can be used by both an artist or artisan to great effect.

The art is the creation of the Artist, not the equipment or methods he uses.

The camera can do no more than record what is placed before it.
There is a considerable learning curve in successfully mastering any tool.
In many ways it is harder to master the use of a pencil than a camera.
Even an idiot can use a camera to record a fairly good likeness after only a few minutes training.
But give a pencil to the same person and it will take years to accomplish half as much.

Digital has taken this idiot proofing further than we ever thought it would.
now new photographers are even questioning the need for any study at all, certainly not learning how the great masters saw, understood and portrayed the world.

Technique has been degraded to using add on filters, modes, apps and built in styles, with no understanding of why or how they should or should not be used.

For some it has become reduced to the level of painting by numbers... and with the same artistic value.
 
Last edited:
while for others it has been greatly enhanced by learning new skills - if HCB , Mcullin, Burrows etc were working today would they ignore all the advantages of digital or would they embrace them and use it to create great images ? (that's almost a question for a separate thread)
 
Hugh, I don't think it is that well known outside the artistic world and all I ever see on forums and photographic discussions is thirds thirds thirds with a few 'leading lines' comments. Wasn't Da Vinci a trend setter with the Golden Ratios or is my memory poor?

I think almost all 'good' pictures have some compositional theory to support it somewhere, its needed otherwise the art world cant describe why it is good! Which may have been your point in the first place...and I am just arguing your very point for you. OK, maybe you win but there is obviously much more to composition than thirds and leading lines which you have to agree is all most people consider or study.

Terry I agree with the first half of your comment but don't agree with the second half. If good digital software enables a user to achieve an aim easier and quicker why is that so bad? I agree that to simply whack on a plugin effect without thought is unlikely to produce a good result but with thought, care and emotion?

I think the point is that a pencil is VERY hard to master but I dont think a camera is any different. Its the perception that is different in the user. Yes we can all draw something with a pencil and we can all point a camera and press a shutter but my point is, to master the art takes practice, hours of frustration, many aborted attempts and general dissatisfaction with the finished article. Not much difference really is there?
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Hugh, I don't think it is that well known outside the artistic world and all I ever see on forums and photographic discussions is thirds thirds thirds with a few 'leading lines' comments. Wasn't Da Vinci a trend setter with the Golden Ratios or is my memory poor?
Click to expand...

But photography is art :D (I don't want to start that discussion :nuts:)

I know what you mean about 1/3rds, but sometimes I also know forums aren't the be and and end all. Not sure about him setting trends (but only cause my art history is hazy) but I know you can find lots of examples of the ratio in nature and architecture.Probably why its so pleasing to us

Rich_Ellis said:
I think almost all 'good' pictures have some compositional theory to support it somewhere, its needed otherwise the art world cant describe why it is good! Which may have been your point in the first place...and I am just arguing your very point for you. OK, maybe you win but there is obviously much more to composition than thirds and leading lines which you have to agree is all most people consider or study.
Click to expand...

You're arguing my point for me ;) - I would say its important not so the art world can describe why its good, but so a piece is pleasing to us. I do agree 1/3rd and lines are all most people consider or study though
 
Rich_Ellis said:
You would learn all you need to know about light texture an composition by studying the great masters and visiting Art Galleries for a few years

Terry I agree with the first half of your comment but don't agree with the second half. If good digital software enables a user to achieve an aim easier and quicker why is that so bad? I agree that to simply whack on a plugin effect without thought is unlikely to produce a good result but with thought, care and emotion?

I think the point is that a pencil is VERY hard to master but I dont think a camera is any different. Its the perception that is different in the user. Yes we can all draw something with a pencil and we can all point a camera and press a shutter but my point is, to master the art takes practice, hours of frustration, many aborted attempts and general dissatisfaction with the finished article. Not much difference really is there?
Click to expand...

You would learn all you need to know about light, texture an composition by studying the great masters and visiting Art Galleries for a few years.

The techniques of using a camera and printing took me from 10 to 17 years old
The more advanced techniques of seeing, lighting and expressing my self, and and understanding something about "Art" took three years at college.

Since 1991 I have been learning to use photoshop, and other basic digital graphic programs. I have spent by comparison no time at all learning the ins and outs of digital cameras. Every thing I had learnt about art, light, composition and graphics remain unchanged in the new environment.


I stand by what I said here...
Technique has been degraded to using add on filters, modes, apps and built in styles, with no understanding of why or how they should or should not be used.
For some it has become reduced to the level of painting by numbers... and with the same artistic value.
Click to expand...

...Because they do not teach you anything. Certainly they give you a result, but it is a repeat of someone else's work and perhaps effort. It is like using a rubber stamp to sign your name. It is not a demonstration of your skill or artistry.
 
boyfalldown said:
Not sure about him setting trends (but only cause my art history is hazy)
Click to expand...

Phidias in 480 BC was the first to embody the golden ratio in art in the Parthenon statues... it was first described by Euclid in 320 BC , so probably not Da Vinci's trend although he certainly used it
 
big soft moose said:
Phidias in 480 BC was the first to embody the golden ratio in art in the Parthenon statues... it was first described by Euclid in 320 BC , so probably not Da Vinci's trend although he certainly used it
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm they were a little earlier then
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You would learn all you need to know about light, texture an composition by studying the great masters and visiting Art Galleries for a few years.

The techniques of using a camera and printing took me from 10 to 17 years old
The more advanced techniques of seeing, lighting and expressing my self, and and understanding something about "Art" took three years at college.

Since 1991 I have been learning to use photoshop, and other basic digital graphic programs. I have spent by comparison no time at all learning the ins and outs of digital cameras. Every thing I had learnt about art, light, composition and graphics remain unchanged in the new environment.


I stand by what I said here...


...Because they do not teach you anything. Certainly they give you a result, but it is a repeat of someone else's work and perhaps effort. It is like using a rubber stamp to sign your name. It is not a demonstration of your skill or artistry.
Click to expand...

Hi Terry, whilst I understand the last bit of your post, I still don't however agree with it. The first bit I must be being a bit thick, I dont understand sorry. Digital cameras are not much different from film? I agree. Art light and graphics are the same in the digital era? I agree? It takes time to understand? I agree. Mindless use of plugins etc dont make a good photo? I agree. However, thoughtful use of plugins as a base to help to create a vision I think is a good thing.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Meanwhile, in 2013 ...

Is it permitted to forget about formulae and just rely on intuition?
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Meanwhile, in 2013 ...

Is it permitted to forget about formulae and just rely on intuition?
Click to expand...

yes , but 99% of the time a good photographers intuition will deliver a picture informed by golden ratio or other such rules - vis my point earlier about Nick Ut - when he took napalm girl he almost certainly didn't have the time to ponder composition, carefully work out zone and so forth.

But he still delivered a photo which has its major compositional elements in line with 'rules' which is why it delivers such impact - because it shows something shocking in a framework the subconscious feels is aesthetically pleasing.

If he'd delivered a poorly exposed/composed/focussed image of the same scene , chances are it would never have been published and it wouldn't have had the chance to have such an impact on the perception of the Vietnam war.
 
what Pete said really. You may be following intuition and have forgotten the rules, but I'll bet if you're producing compelling photography you're pretty closely folowing some anyway
 
Last edited:
Rich_Ellis said:
I am not sure I agree with you. Isn't art about all those things and more? Its about feeling, emotion, inspiration and many other things on top. Each piece of art is different and therefore has different aspects to appreciate, love, hate or simply not understand. You can hone artistic skills but you cannot learn them if you don't have them in the first place.

For years I tried to be able to play a musical instrument and whilst I could play mechanically with a piece of music in front of me, the minute someone took that away from me, I collapsed. That wasn't because I don't have a good ear or can't appreciate music. (I now realise), It is simply that I had no flair for it, no base artistic 'soul'. Photography is no different. Millions of people can understand and learn the technicalities but only a few use those technical skills as a base to produce amazing, creative and emotional images.
We have all seen or met someone with very little technical skill produce some really clever or interesting images deliberately? Unusual but it does happen. Of course having a technical base improves results but I wonder how many of us then get 'overburdened' with the tech and 'smother' whatever creativity we had?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you regarding the idea that some people are simply born without the ability.

Millions of people can learn the technical aspects, yes. Because it is easy to write down and pass on as information. Artistic learning is different. It is difficult to pass on this information because all of the information is hazy at best. People struggle because they learn to learn in a structured way, learning is less about feeling and more about measurable goals.

Art however is more about being able to look inward, open that door and allow emotion to carry you. Do things through feeling. People I know who are able to sit with a guitar and play things which sound good, can do so because they fell in love with the instrument and just played with it. Inwardly discovered how one thing or another made them feel and make music as an extension of their emotion. If you want to do the same, leave your preconceptions about learning at the door. Nothing is impossible.
 
Ok, but i am not sure we disagree really. Some people find it a lot easier to express their emotions through an art form. Others find it exceptionally difficult. Its in the make-up. Its about passion and drive and commitment. Lots of people dont have that. In my earlier analogy of music - I just cant get it. I love it and am passionate about it but it just doesn't flow from me somehow. I have a friend who is one of the best guitarists I have ever heard and he talks about shapes and patterns on the fret board. Its what he sees. I have not a clue what he is talking about! I have tried, boy have I tried, but it just doesn't come. I find photography allows me to express myself much better.

Another analogy would be sport. Most people can kick a ball and with lots of practice we would get better but we would never reach the heights of say Pele. He was naturally brilliant before he started to practice his craft.
 
Paul Strand wrote:

"Above all, look at the ... immediate world around you. If you are alive, it will mean something to you, and if you care enough about photography, and if you know how to use it, you will want to photograph that meaning. If you let other people's vision get between the world and your own, you will achieve that extremely common and worthless thing, a pictorial photograph. But if you keep this vision clear you may make something which is at least a photograph, which has a life of its own, as a tree or a matchbox, if you see it, has a life of its own. An organism which refuses to let you think about art, pictorialism, or even photography, it simply is. For the achievement of this there are no short cuts, no formulae, no rules except those of your own living. There is necessary, however, the sharpest kind of self-criticism, courage, and hard work. But first learn to photograph. That alone I find for myself is a problem without end."
 
Whilst discussing this thread with my son he suggested that most, if not all, advertising photography is art in that it creates emotions in the viewers mind to influence them to "buy" a product.
So if you want some current "art" for "inspiration" just look around you or pick up almost any magazine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top